R. J.David Bleich in Tradition:
“The most significant of such reports is recorded by R. Israel Moses Hazan, Kerakh shel Romi (Levorno, 5636), no. 1, p. 4a. Rabbi Hazan reports that a certain Abraham ha-Kohen Avinash of Smyrna led a group of “well-known wise men” in unobtrusively entering Christian churches on holy days in order to listen to soul-stirring church music which they then adapted for synagogue liturgy”

So was it “outside of Churches” or “unobtrusively entering Christian churches”?

I would only add that Rabbi Bleich changes “הר’ המופלא” to “a certain-” Just because he has no idea who Abraham Ha-kohen Avinash [sic; it’s Arias] of Smyrna was, doesn’t mean that Rabbi Hazan did not. The fact that he thought highly of him is relevant to his opinion I would think.

Yes, I know very well that hrh”G doesn’t mean that the person is a gaon, but such an expression as used here almost certainly means that the identity of the man was known to R. Hazan. It is “a certain Abraham” to R. Bleich, but not to R. Hazan.

I also think I need to explain myself better. True, in a teshuva where the person is addressed as “ho-rav ha-ga’on” it could even be that the posek doesn’t personally know the person and is just responding politely. The questioner may be a dentist, not a ga’on, and the posek doesn’t know. But I think here it is clear that R. Hazan knows who Abraham is. Maybe he didn’t know him personally, but the point is that he is not citing him as “a certain man,” but someone with a good reputation.

Yes, maybe I’m being pedantic. I don’t think R. Bleich meant or did any harm. As I said, who would you trust to report the contents of a teshuva accurately? I think R. Bleich has a good track record.

However, it cannot be denied that Rav Bleich does inject a certain degree of condescension towards those who do not assist his case in that article. The church visits of the Chief Rabbis of the United Synagogue (acting with full permission of the London Beth Din) are ‘irrelevant’ and the pre-war German rabbinate, were, ‘in general, hardly famed as Talmudic scholars’.

I translate from Rav Hazan’s teshuvah: “And I call to witness heaven and earth that when I was in the great city of Hakahmim and Sofrim Smyrna I saw well known hakhamim who were expert singers and musicians and at their head was the Rav ha-mufleh,,,.”

Even more important, Rav Hazan he goes on to say that their entering the church behind the pargod to listen to the music is a “maaseh rav” which serves as a “siyyua gadol” for his argument. This is far more than just standard “effusive praise.”

Moshe Shoshan-where are your local RZ representatives and lobbyists? Unfortunately, the Charedi world has been very aggressive in basically taking over RBS, while the RZ world essentially has focused on its dream of EY HaShelemah. Perhaps, IMO, that is one of many reasons why the RZ population in RBS has long felt itself and its mosdot under a state of siege.

Steve – this is simply the acts of a violent, hateful gang of Chareidi lunatics and don’t represent the majority of Chareidi RBS residents. As a matter of fact, these crazies also are known to terrorize their fellow Chareidim.

Unfortuneately, Mayor Abitbul is acting in a cowardly fashion. He should be taking a strong stand. Unfortunately, I don’t believe he will.

If the police won’t do their job, civilians need to do everything possible to protect themselves and prevent criminals from committing crimes. That includes patrolling the streets and videotaping and photographing criminals for publication in the media. If the police won’t arrest them, prevent them and shame them.

Steve- I cant give you a entire history the chareidi take over in beit shemesh, but for one thing, it helps if you are willing to break the law and resort to violence to get your way.

It is true and important to keep in mind that these thugs represent only a small percentage charedim in BS, but my experience suggests that many chareidim here are fellow travelers and no charadei community or leader has been willing speak out against them. We have appealed to leading chareidi rabbonim who have declined to get involved.

What does that mean? Wasn’t this school the mayors to allocate? Who owns the building? And if he is giving into a minority, then clearly shouldn’t the National Religious en masse adopt the minorities tactics vis-a-vis the mayor. Or force him to resign.

“Acording to the attached link, the issue is that the mayor promised two groups the building: ”

According to the Beit Shemesh Iriyah’s faebook page (or what purports to be their page), the haredim wanted the space, the mayor agreed to give it to a DL boys school and finessed some sort of compromise, and the problem is that the DL want to use it for girls. So this is not just a fight over reasources – the violent reaction seems directly related to the fact that it will be used for girls, not boys, regardless of whether they are haredim.

It seems to me that the best “defense” of the silent majority of haredim is not to constantly point out that they are the majority and the mafia is a fringe, but rather to acknowledge that the “fringe” has apparently accumulated enough power that it may take over. to “defend” haredim who truly oppose them requires not belittling the extremists, but recognizing them as a real threat.

The whole sitation seems truly sad, because no solution seems forthcoming, meaning it will only get worse…

“I would only add that Rabbi Bleich changes “הר’ המופלא” to “a certain-” Just because he has no idea who Abraham Ha-kohen Avinash [sic; it’s Arias] of Smyrna was, doesn’t mean that Rabbi Hazan did not. The fact that he thought highly of him is relevant to his opinion I would think.”

and DLKaplan wrote:

I translate from Rav Hazan’s teshuvah: “And I call to witness heaven and earth that when I was in the great city of Hakahmim and Sofrim Smyrna I saw well known hakhamim who were expert singers and musicians and at their head was the Rav ha-mufleh,,,.”

Even more important, Rav Hazan he goes on to say that their entering the church behind the pargod to listen to the music is a “maaseh rav” which serves as a “siyyua gadol” for his argument. This is far more than just standard “effusive praise.”

===

this is putting a lot of weight on a diyuk on the words “a certain.” isn’t the fact that these words are followed with a description of the group of “well-known wise men” sufficient to convey that the group collectively was respected? This leads to the conclusion that the intent of the words “A certain” is only to convey that the leader of the group isn’t otherwise well-known, and not to downgrade the import of the event to R Hazan. Indeed it is unclear how much weight R Hazan is putting on the fact that the group contained well-known chachamim and how much on the fact that the group is lead by “harav hamufleh” but surely it is sufficient to communicate R Hazan’s respect for the group as a whole and use a phrase like “a certain” to communicate that the rabbi is obscure.

That said, although you are right that R. Bleich added the part about the group of wise men, I do think that his language (unintentionally) conveys a certain subtle distortion of the teshuva. If “a certain” communicates that the man is obscure, it should only communicate that he is obscure to R. Bleich himself (to the extent that he did not even copy his surname correctly), not to have it appear that he was obscure to R. Hazan which would make all the difference in his intent. I would think that mentioning the man by name and not just the group was intended to show some weight.

“These goons, like many in this world, only know one thing: violence.”

then can we apply “torat hemelech” to this case?

“It’s an outrage. The police are acting like the neighborhood bully, not the body responsible for public order,” from the missing / nonexistent protocols of the temple mount article.

same thing. you want them to straighten this (RBS) out?

2. st andrews university classes started already? and we are complaining that yc didnt start yet? university / police authorities — same thing. if it was the otherway around, the yu student would have been booted off the golf course university by now.

3. didnt r gil post on this a few years ago, including the famous statement that chazanim used to go to church (in front / behind the “pargud” ) and to opera houses, to catch the latest tunes. though modern day tunes are what gil refered to as “erev shel shoshanim”.

actually, the historic source that keeps the tunes from the beit hamikdash is the catholic church.

and the introduction to keter / kedusha on RH / YK (“ein kitzvah” to kedusha; the (supposed) high point of the davening) is traditionally sung to an old (eastern; read polish russian peasant) drinking song.

4. the rav of rome incident obviously is very old; i doubt like hrh”G titles were given out so easily in those days.

“a certain” doesn’t communicate to me what it communicates you. there isn’t evidence that it would have made “all the difference” to R Hazan himself. R Hazan expounds on the collective merits of the group and the scholars of that locale. let’s move to your other objections, to put your original one in context:

“It’s interesting that he refers to Immanuel of Rome as a “rabbinic figure,” albeit not one worthy of emulation (although the Chida does record that his perush on Iyov is the best one there is).”

the singular nature of italian jewry notwithstanding, both figures mentioned in that paragraph are rabbinic figures of ambiguous status (not that the term “rabbinic figure” is necessarily pejorative). Immanel of Rome may have written a wonderful pirush on iyov, but he is surely a marginal rabbinic figure, as evidenced by the fact that the Shulchan Aruch specifically singles out “sifrei imanuel” as inappropriate reading on shabbat and even during the week. Moreover, your question applies with equal or more force to Dr. Marc Shapiro’s conclusion regarding the force of these figures’ examples, as cited in the article.

“It’s also interesting how he darshans a paragraph in an article in the LBIY to determine that R. Joseph Carlebach’s halachic knowledge was wanting.”

is it? that paragraph in the article in the LBIY, in which R Carlebach is quoted as making a distinction that doesn’t line up with the halachic texts, is followed by the author of the article’s explicit assertion that R Carlebach’s halachic knowledge was wanting.

Before the War, it was unheard of that every child learned in Yeshiva the entire day; it was only a selection of students. The remainder learned only part of the day, and spent the rest of their day working.

Today, however, there is a new ideal (that has no source in Torah): everyone has to learn Gemara, and someone who learns Mishnayos is considered a “loser.” (Oy, he’s learning Mishnayos? He must have a “shvacher kop”) Never in history was there such a phenomenon.

Throughout the generations, each person learned according to his level. While one may have learned Gemara Pesachim, yet another was learning Mishnayos Taharos, and the latter was in no way considered less of a talmid chacham than the former! Likewise, a third will have learned Chumash, and a fourth; Chumash with Rashi.

The same is true within the study of Gemara itself. One may learn the first sugya in Pesachim, while his friend learned Arvei Pesachim. Would that make him a lesser person than his friend?

It does not make sense for each person to learn the same thing, for Hashem did not create us the same!

Would that everyone in the Orthodox world, MO included, would finally understand that yeshiva/intensive analytical gemara study is not for everyone. For another take, which praises the “baal-batim”, see here:

Piling, thank you. You are correct about what I meant re Immanuel. Even apart for the ignoble mention in the Shulchan Aruch, I’m just not sure what makes him a “rabbinic” figure. By contrast, I know exactly why R. Yehuda Aryeh Modena was a “rabbinic” figure. He was a posek, darshan and dayan, and counted amongst the rabbis of Venice.

I know this has been discussed repeatedly before, but what I find astounding about those who propose it is that they are missing a basic problem. Even without tav lemeitav tan du, the typical divorce situation does not lend itself to mekach taut.

To illustrate, I bought my house ten years ago. BH, it survived this last hurricane intact. Let’s say instead that Hurriance Irene had flattened it, causing me great financial loss. Could I reverse the sale, saying, had I known that in 10 years it would be in the path of the worst hurricane in 100 years, I would never have gone through with it? So it was a mekach taut?

That is clearly absurd. Everyone who makes such a purchase understands that it entails risks and uncertainties. Clearly, the benefits of owning a house for me and my family outweighed those uncertainties. No one would ever posken that I could reverse the sale on that basis. (IIRC, Rav Soloveichik made the same point using the stock market as an illustration.)

I looked up the famous gemara in Bava Kamma 110b-111a, and lo and behold, Rashi says the exact same thing! The case in the gemara is that a woman marries a man, he dies, and she becomes required to perform yibbum with his brother, who happens to be have a loathsome disease. The gemara says that she would prefer to have been married, because of tav le meitav tan du.

Rashi there explains that what this means is that she prefers to have been married TO HUSBAND NO. 1, who was perfectly whole, on the chance (safeik) that if he predeceases his brother with a loathsome disease and without living descendants, then the laws of yibbum will require her to live with the brother and his loathsome diseases.

IOW, acc. to Rashi, tav le meitav does not mean that a woman would rather marry a leper than no one. It means tha a woman who finds a perfectly fine husband and agrees to marry him is accepting the fact that the uncertainties of life might mean that years later she will be stuck with the loathsome brother. Husband No.1 was perfectly fine and the marriage to him is what the woman wants.

In that context, what makes anyone think that psychology has changed in 2000 years? Marriage is full of uncertainties, and as experience has shown, many marriages end up sour in one way or the other. Yet people still get married. Why? The answer is, people prefer a chance at marital bliss, and accept the fact that things might go sour some years down the road.

This means that in the vast majority of divorce cases, there is simply no basis to apply mekach ta’ut at all. Just because someone changed their personality or became difficult to live with is hardly a reason to apply mekach taut. That is part of the uncertainty the parties accepted when the married.

(This is not to say it can never apply. I once heard that RMF poskened in a case where someone married a woman and failed to disclose that he had AIDS, that it was a mekach ta’ut. Clearly, that is something that goes to the heart of a marriage and that no one would accept had they known the truth.)

Tal – what’s interesting as well as that the annulment of marriage, at least from a Canadian family law perspective, is a rarely used remedy to release a party from a marriage that maintains a high standard to be met before a court would grant an annulment. The grounds are either a legal defect in the marriage ceremony or a capacity issues. Non-consummation of a marriage is an indication of capacity issues, but is not grounds for annulment. Marriages of convenience are marriages and annulment is not available in such cases.

Yet here, we have a proposal to use annulment as a legal means to end a marriage in a wider variety of cases than what is allowed in by non-Jewish courts. If a husband refuses to grant a get, annulment would be used, when even in secular family law, annulment would not be granted.

Also, while its commonly pointed out that in secular family law, the courts can grant a divorce without the consent of the other party, that is very narrowly defined and usually divorce is only granted by a court once such things as child and spousal support, division of matrimonial home and marriage property are dealt with. Divorce orders do not happen in a vacuum and are only granted once everything has been worked out.

>Yet here, we have a proposal to use annulment as a legal means to end a marriage in a wider variety of cases than what is allowed in by non-Jewish courts. If a husband refuses to grant a get, annulment would be used, when even in secular family law, annulment would not be granted.

What is the significance of that? What’s the “and yet”? First of all, who says that Jewish divorce law is or supposed to be more stringent than secular divorce law? We’re not Catholics. Secondly, annulment is not necessary in secular cases when they can just get divorced. I’m not sure what the legal reasoning is in the distinct cases, but no one winds up unable to remarry until one spouse waves their magic wand out of the goodness of their heart. In an Agunah situation they can’t just get divorced. That’s the crux of the problem.

Exactly my point. There is no reason why halacha is supposed to be more or less stringent than secular law. So I have no idea why the criteria for annulment under secular laws are at all relevant. Even if they are more stringent than halacha, no one is forced to remain in a marriage under secular law. If it doesn’t allow for an annulment, there’s nothing preventing a divorce. This is what proposals to annul Jewish marriages are trying to remedy.

calling the rav’s rejection (of r rackman) as a case of “suspeneded animation’ for judaism is (almost) as foolish as the underlying issue (mass annulmment) itself.

and tal b: dont know about RMF and aids case, but in igrot moshe, RMF specifically says (regarding homesexual husband) that if the wife “lived” with him even once, knowing his “condition”, she cannot get an annulment. and not only that, it is dependent on the (ex) husband’s being a homosexual before the marriage, not that he acquired the “condition” during / after the marriage (or separation).

thus, to extend your example, if the property was damaged during the marriage, no annulment; and if the resident lived in the house one night knowing the (precarious) “condition” of the house, no annulment. (and claims of the (ex) wife being “pressured” into living with the condition(even temporarily) are no annulment, either.)

2. catholic annulments are dependent on the local church’s being “charedi” or not. if your last name is “kennedy”, it is available (though they havent used it, except once. ditto a kennedy ex now living in albany.)

3. educ systen m is dangerous — but no one will listen to chabad on this one.

4. just like they dont listen to amer coucil for judaism then (yes, classic reform judaism; famous quote “america is our jerusalem”). but as the article pionts out, todays leftist (non O) judaism has adopted the policy. (well, maybe some O, too.)

His argument was never taken seriously way before 1975-if the REB proposal to change future kiddushin wasn’t accepted on public policy grounds where there was impeccable logic behind it-no one could seriously consider a proposal to essentially eliminate the concept of gittin being required to undo a marriage after the fact.

“3. educ systen m is dangerous — but no one will listen to chabad on this one”
Essentially agree-al regel achat I read R Heller’s piece and forgetting the Chassidic examples what he says is accurate for misnagdim/MO etc. Very good piece.

Re Galileo-one must not forget that at the time period the Churchs astronomers still predicted astronomical events with as much accuracy as Galileo. The church was conservative but they were involved in science on an objective manner-Jesuit astronomers of the time confirmed Galileos observations-very complex story-not as simplistic as most think.

It’s already wide open at Chabad Houses. A number of the most regular minyan goers at the Chabad shuls nearest me are intermarried and welcomed with open arms, given aliyas, allowed to daven from the amud, etc. So the Conservatives are just following their lead.

I don’t know why the ACJ view of Zionism is always portrayed as a reform view. There are certainly many charedim and even some modern orthodox who hold views regarding Zionism, Israel and/or a Jewish State that are similar to those of the ACJ. From a practical perspective there really isn’t much of a difference between abandoning belief in a messiah or declaring that the messiah will come at some time in the future on a white donkey accompanied by the temple descending out of the sky, all while supporting the view that Jews are members of the mosaic religion while citizens of X or Y state.

As a lifelong member of the MO community, I’ve met many many MO Jews over my life and can’t think of one who holds views about Zionism or Israel similar to those of the ACJ. Maybe there are some who I will meet someday but it hasn’t happened yet.

>As a lifelong member of the MO community, I’ve met many many MO Jews over my life and can’t think of one who holds views about Zionism or Israel similar to those of the ACJ. Maybe there are some who I will meet someday but it hasn’t happened yet.

They are a rare bread now at days, but you may still be able to find a TIDE austritt-lovin Yekke here and there who can be described as both MO and antizionist.

Joseph: I’ve seen it. You can find it in some postings on Morethodoxy, for example, and other rabbis of that ilk. (Lopatin, for example, once put up a post calling for the end of the State of Israel.) I met one at the Kotel who casually mentioned that he wasn’t a Zionist. (YU rabbi, “out of town” kehilla, young.) I doubt he had any idea what he was saying, but they’re out there.

BTW, I find it interesting that R. Lopatin essentially takes the side of the hard secular side of the 1958 “Who is a Jew” debate – namely, that people need merely declare that they are Jewish to be considered such by the state of Israel.

There was a much more recent posting along the same lines. He even had the chutzpa to claim the mantle of Jabotinsky in doing so, and pledged to move his kehillah to Israel- the Negev, of course, chas v’shalom someplace “disputed.” I don’t think it panned out.

I don’t think you can fault him for claiming the mantle of Jabotinsky. Actaully many of the Caananites of the 1950’s came out of the Revisionist movement and they were all Jabotisnkiites.
Though I don’t think that their vision of a “one-state” was the same as what Lopatin and other one-staters argue for – which is much closer to the Brit Shalom one-state vision than the Caanananite view

I also think he misunderstood the historical context – Jabotinsky frequently spoke of a mass aliya of millions of Jews to the land of Israel from pre-Holocaust Europe, thus ensuring an overwhelming Jewish majority. For obvious reasons, that is not a realistic option today – the USSR reservoir is already depleted and there is no mass aliyah from the US on the horizon at least until doomsday. Declaring “one-state” now, even assuming the Palestinians never cross 50%, would still mean a paralyzed, horribly disfunctional bi-national state a la Lebanon in the bad old days.

As for Rabbi Lopatin’s plan to invite millions of people from Africa and Asia to simply “declare” themselves Jewish to ensure a majority…the less said about such an insane plan, the better.

Actually, now that you mention it: Some of the most prominent liberal-minded Orthodox figures out there can be horribly regressive in their personal views. I’ve known some prominent Orthodox Democrats (or even just plain liberal Democrats) who, in private, express terribly racist views. (This is not a dig at them- I’m sure this crosses political lines, but they’re who I’m discussing. And I’m not sure the two *don’t* have anything to do with each other.)

Similarly, I’ve heard people with very left-wing views vis a vis the Israel/Arab issue express, privately, very racist attitudes toward Arabs (again, perhaps these are connected) and, on the other hand (and I do mean that) “solutions” that come pretty close to Kahanism. The disconnect is such that they sometimes try to reconcile these in their public statements. The result is a messy hodgepodge.

I’m not sure that this wasn’t true of some of the Jabotinskyites as well.

“>As a lifelong member of the MO community, I’ve met many many MO Jews over my life and can’t think of one who holds views about Zionism or Israel similar to those of the ACJ. Maybe there are some who I will meet someday but it hasn’t happened yet.

They are a rare bread now at days, but you may still be able to find a TIDE austritt-lovin Yekke here and there who can be described as both MO and antizionist.”

That as well as MO Jews who just perceive themselves as Americans and do not see Israel as important or relevant. Certain types of people who work in service of the American government or write for news publications.
Even if the shul they daven in says tefilla leshlom hamedinah or has an Israel flag, they are not Zionist. The Israeli flag is to them the same thing that the references to korbanot in tefilla are to Jews who don’t believe there will ever again be such a thing.

Joseph – even if it is the vast majority – which it probably is – that doesn’t mean you can necessarily equate MO with Zionism or suggest that Zionism is an a priori requirement for the definition of MO – as R. Yitzchak Blau once tried to suggest. It is not – and the fact that there are anti-zionist and non-zionist MO jews and thinkers proves this.

Interesting article with Rabbi Wolpe. Does anyone agree with this assessment:

“As the intellectual pressures of Western society increase, I am hoping you will see a gradual defection from fundamentalism and that – unbeknownst to all these yeshivot – they are training the next generations of Conservative Jews. It has happened before and it may happen again.”

I don’t think Wolpe is right – one of the most interesting trends of the last 40 or so years has been the ability of groups which do not engage intellectually with modernity to retain their youth and grow demographically whilst keeping the outside world at bay. In a post ideological world it is likely to be only a distinct minority who are induced to leave for intellectual reasons, however strong the academic consensus may be in favour of a given hypothesis that contradicts that group’s narrative. If anything, it will be economic pressures or a reaction to what the youth may perceive to be an overly restrictive lifestyle that will lead to change, possibly compounded by a crisis of leadership.

I’m still chewing on “extrapolating from current trends is as fooloish in religion as it is in economics” certainly a pithy style, and of course it is true that straight line extrapolation (everything will remain the same) is just about always wrong (see orthodoxy, demise thereof predicted circa 1950). What is lacking is an analysis of the circumstances (and likelihood) that will cause the change (e.g. poverty?)
KT

Also, one must remember, that as opposed to many strands of Xtianity, charedi Judaism has an entire alternative ‘intellectual universe’ that exists on a separate plane to crude clashes with the scientific consensus such as Xtian creationism, e.g. theoretical ‘lomdishe’ constructs. This is far less likely to be damaged by the ‘pressures of Western civilization’ as it largely escapes engagement with it.

““Yitzik,” a 25-year-old father of two, said that for him and others in the neighborhood, “the presence of the boys school was never a problem, but then, they try to sneak in the girls’ school.

It’s not just the extremists among us that are against this, all of us are.”

Yitzik added, “We are raising our children here and they can’t be exposed to these sorts of immodest sights,” in reference to the style of dress favored by national-religious school girls and their mothers.”

R’RA,
Not doubting your statement but are there surveys of such (and I often wonder do we get the “hollow attrition” – that is folks who remain sociologically in their original camp but are mentally checked out)
KT

Dr. Shoshan, here’s what I don’t get: most of your side is relatively physically healthy, have served in the army, and own weapons. The opposite is true of your enemies. Why aren’t you just fighting back?

I don’t trust yitzi that “it’s not just the extremists.” But I do trust him (because many other signs point in this direction too) that it’s largely driven by the presence of (gasp) non-haredi females. That’s what makes me

““Yitzik,” a 25-year-old father of two, said that for him and others in the neighborhood, “the presence of the boys school was never a problem, but then, they try to sneak in the girls’ school.

It’s not just the extremists among us that are against this, all of us are.”

Yitzik added, “We are raising our children here and they can’t be exposed to these sorts of immodest sights,” in reference to the style of dress favored by national-religious school girls and their mothers.”

Is the term “extremists” a matter of the opinions people hold, or the tactics they use? To put it differently, if someone is opposed to the school, but is also opposed to violent tactics, is he (or she) an “extremist?”

“Not doubting your statement but are there surveys of such (and I often wonder do we get the “hollow attrition” – that is folks who remain sociologically in their original camp but are mentally checked out)”

Joel,

To play devil’s advocate – from the Charedi POV they’re a partial victory – since they’ll send their children to Charedi schools, so the next generation is “safe”. Not so w/OTD RZers.

Tal – Very much so. Anyone who is opposed to a frum school for little girls in a neighborhood which is not even theirs is an extremist. I’d like to see these loons pull a similar stunt over a Williamsburg public school. These good for nothing layabouts would be wise to avoid continuing to bite the hands of the Israeli taxpayers who feed and protect them.

DL have a higher attrition rate than Chareidim in EY. Therefore, they are producing more seculars with solid values.

More likely, the charedim are also producing secular people, but without solid values. Charedi ideology says there are are no values, only arbitrary Divine commands. Take away the commandedness and you get people with no moral sense whatsoever. Many of them develop some kind of values on their own, but they have no help from their past community in that regard.

“More likely, the charedim are also producing secular people, but without solid values. Charedi ideology says there are are no values, only arbitrary Divine commands. Take away the commandedness and you get people with no moral sense whatsoever. Many of them develop some kind of values on their own, but they have no help from their past community in that regard.”

Sorry. My point wasn’t that. My point was that DL has more adherents going off the derech than Chareidim.

The RBS nonsense makes me sick to the stomach. I thought that governments are instituted among men to protect rights… Where are the water-cannons?!

I get so bored every year when the anti-Uman poskim come out of the woodwork. Those who issue these rulings do not get the Breslev cultural context and will therefore be ignored by anyone who DOES care about Uman. Those who go to Uman view the anti-Uman psak the way a sefardi views an Ashkenazi poseik telling them how to pronounce an Ayin. Move on…

“The statistical likelihood of many new teachers leaving the profession within their first three years on the job”

How many people change careers within first three years on job leaving out skilled professions where people sp[ent a few years in serious graduate school and then some post graduate internships I submit the figure is high.

“coupled with recent economic constraints, ”
so where can they do better financially

“Low paycheck, low morale, and not feeling valued by administrators”
feelings pandemic in many fields -BTW even in people double or more the age of those profiled.

.” Starting salary for a teacher with a master’s degree at a Bergen County Jewish day or high school is $40,000 to $45,000. ”

What is the median per hour salary of those with equivalent amount of years working/education of a masters degree in education-suspect it may be lower than these teachers are getting.

“A school might typically contribute six percent of salary toward a pension once a teacher has completed two full years”
What percent of workers are getting even six percent of salary towards a pension today?

” some of her professionally dissatisfied colleagues no longer see any reason to stay on without substantial discounts for their own children”

If the reason to teach is profit maximization and if one can do better elsewhere lech leshalom-I doubt too many will find better jobs elsewhere.

“”[Jewish studies] teacher can probably make more tutoring than teaching, assuming the family has medical benefits from a spouse,” ”
How many tutoring jobs have hours competing with a teachers normal workday-of course this simply means that if those jobs are really available a teacher could earns ubstantially more merely by working some of the hours that she/he is not working compared to normal American workers.

“Greene said. “A general studies teacher could earn more in the public school system””

If they could get a job there-of course many secular teachers moonlight after finishing their day at a public school or after retiring from a public school.

“however, and wage freezes are now in effect in many New Jersey districts. The state’s public school teachers are the third highest-paid new teachers in the country, starting at less than $40,000 without a master’s degree. More than half of all New Jersey public school teachers earn between $40,000 and $60,000; the average salary was $61,830 in 2009.”

So I don’t understand how teachers in day schools are earning much less than public school teachers. BTW public school teachers face challenges that day school teachers are unlikely to face.
Teachers contribute varying amounts toward medical and retirement plans

I’m afraid you’re the one engaging in wishful thinking – homosexuality is considered completely legit by the overwhelming majority of people in the Western world. The stats brought by R. Wolpe match numbers I’ve seen elsewhere.

“The real issue is that for a large proportion of the Jewish world, in Israel and the Diaspora, Judaism no longer makes sense. It does not move them, inspire them or transform them. It does not speak to them at the deepest levels of our being.”

Clearly nothing new-otherwise explain why Jews in genral left traditional Judaism as soon as they were welcomed elsewhere see eg Europe in the Enlightenment.

“They were the children of Abraham who was willing to leave land, home and family and travel to an unknown destination in response to God’s call”

How many of us were willing to leave the diaspora to go to Israel-not many during the return in the 2nd Commonwealth and not many who had an opportunity to since.

“Consider a family with four children earning $200,000 a year. Only 3.5 percent of Americans earn more, yet such families are having difficulty paying tuition bills that typically exceed their mortgage obligations.”

SO HOW ARE THE OTHER 96.5% SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF THE DAY SCHOOL MOVEMENT?

“The tuition problem has been decades in the making, and we are now facing a broken and unsustainable system”
It has existed since the beginningof day schools-now the problems are also reaching the elite upper middle class-so now it is the friends of machers so they might start paying attention.

“Our grandparents and parents paid tuition, but they rarely if ever took vacations or purchased new vehicles on a regular basis. ”

The wealthier Orthodox Jews always did-who went to the Catskills for Yomim Tovim?

“They lived in small residences that were far more modest than those we live in today.”

“The economic downturn has created a new financial reality for many of us”

For the upper middle class who were involved in finacial institutions-the average American male has not seen their income go up in real terms for decades.

“Schools can and should be held accountable for out-of-control spending and quality of education”

Insist that all Jewish organizations disclose their financial dealings at least to the extent of info found on a form 990. BTW I don’t believe the OU or OU Kosher does.

“We at the OU — and all those who care about the future of American Orthodoxy — must continue to make day school affordability a priority”

How much of the OUs profits get repatriated to the Orthodox Jewish community as aid to day schools. Or maybe the OU should give rebates to all member schuls on a per capita basis from its profits.

In general marriage has no state impact on individual rights and obligations-even the US Income tax concept of joint return came into play I believe in response to the ability of those living in community property states to split income and thus have the equivakent of a joint returm. It is not intrinsicto the American CL system.

“>>“homosexuality is considered completely legit by the overwhelming majority of people in the Western world”

Is there any evidence whatsoever backing up this generalization? Perhaps this is true in the upper east side of Manhattan.”

Nachum said ordinary people disapprove of homosexuality. AIWAC responded and said they don’t. Neither provided any support other than their ipse dixit. I assume, Canuck, your question asking for evidence is directed to both.

aiwac: Thanks for the link to that Gallop poll, which demonstrated an even division, rather than overwhelming acceptance for the “morality” of homosexual behavior.

Joseph: I had to look up “ipse dixit” in the dictionnary – but thanks for your response. I meant no offense to those who live in the upper east side, despite my earlier tongue-in-cheek comment ;-).

mycroft: I didn’t understand your references to Greek ideology, but I assume you meant that current western cultures share with the ancient Greeks a relative tolerance for homosexual behavior. Of course, western science and philosphy have deep roots in the schools of ancient Greece (and of course Rome). Thanks.

mycroft – Are you sure the ancient Greeks invented the ideal of rational thought rather than accepting things on faith? Can you give one or two examples? Surely, others in ancient times knew how to think rationally, long before the classical period?

“Ancient Greeks” did not invent the idea of rational thought. Aristotle and Plato complain about the lack of clear thinking amongst their countrymen. In fact, all people who ever wrote about something akin to rational thought complained about this fact, until today…

The Chinese and Confucius complain about the same thing, as do some ancient Hindu scholars.

aiwac, I was more focused on the theoretical “P” who would have been the source of the prohibition on homosexual behavior in Vayikra. Wolpe is really fantasizing if he thinks P somehow approved of homosexuality- clearly he didn’t!

Of course, Wolpe may really mean “It was all written by humans anyway, so who cares?” Of course, he didn’t say that, and if he did, you can just get rid of Shabbat and Kashrut and social justice as well.

“Canuck on September 4, 2011 at 10:32 pm
mycroft – Are you sure the ancient Greeks invented the ideal of rational thought rather than accepting things on faith? Can you give one or two examples? Surely, others in ancient times knew how to think rationally, long before the classical period?

avi on September 5, 2011 at 12:47 am
“Ancient Greeks” did not invent the idea of rational thought. Aristotle and Plato complain about the lack of clear thinking amongst their countrymen.”

I should have been clearer-it wasthe Greek influence of Aristotle/Plato etc that was behind rational thought not cultures based on revelation.

>Of course, Wolpe may really mean “It was all written by humans anyway, so who cares?” Of course, he didn’t say that, and if he did, you can just get rid of Shabbat and Kashrut and social justice as well.

It actually doesn’t make sense for Wolpe to endorse Shabbos and kashrus, after publicly claiming that the Exodus didn’t happen. What does the wishy-washy term social justice even mean?

“Of course, Wolpe may really mean “It was all written by humans anyway, so who cares?” Of course, he didn’t say that, and if he did, you can just get rid of Shabbat and Kashrut and social justice as well.

It actually doesn’t make sense for Wolpe to endorse Shabbos and kashrus, after publicly claiming that the Exodus didn’t happen. ”

Whats news? Conservative Judaism hasn’t accepted halacha in its classical form as binding for decades-I suspect the majority of Conservative Rabbis don’t believe in a literal Bible-not in the way of parshanut but simply it is made up by humans. There has been very little theological difference between Reform and Conservative for decades see eg Milton Himmelfarb in his 1966 into to Commnetary’s State of Jewish belief.

mycroft – I was trying to put some sense into Nachum, who seemed to be defending Wolpe; and inadvertently, that could be seen as a defense of Wolpe’s heretical beliefs, which are at the core of the stangely named Conservative Movement. That movement is causing the masses to sin, and ultimately threatens their Jewish identity.

To be fair to the Conservatives, their sins are mostly inadvertent. And the movement does what the laity wants. However, the leaders know better, so Jews who are more knowledgeable should have a strategy to publicly discredit the Conservative Movement.

If specific legal and policy questions were asked, far less than 58% would have agreed. Examples: Do you favor same-sex marriage? Do you favor school material that discusses and normalizes homosexual activity or same-sex-marriage?

MMHY: If only people considered traditional views improper and left it at that. They will attempt to criminalize dissent as they have done in Canada, using section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states that it is discriminatory to communicate material “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt.” Also, noone is immune from the moral climate.